UN Gun Grab on Pace for March

In just two months the globalists of the UN will gather in New York City to put the final touches on plans to impose strict regulations worldwide on the right of the individual to buy, sell, trade, or own guns and ammunition.

Re: UN Gun Grab on Pace for March

Unless we sign the treaty. Any treaty signed supercedes all laws for the country.

US Constitution

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice the 2nd paragraph.

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Unless we sign the treaty. Any treaty signed supercedes all laws for the country.

US Constitution

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice the 2nd paragraph.

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Seems the UN can affect us.

I am well aware of that part of the Constitution but you are missing something very important... two things actually.

1) Any treaty "made" by the president must pass 2/3rds of the senate (present) so his or his agent's signature is not a done deal by a long shot. 2) No treaty is valid if it countermands the Constitutiion, including the Bill of Rights. (see the presidential oath of office). In order for treaties to be legal, they must have this blessing; "under the Authority of the United States". That means the Constitution.

For example, let's suppose a treaty was made, signed, and passed that virtually eliminated one's protection under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures? Or suppose a treaty made it through the senate that recognized Isam as the national religion? Do you actually believe that this would pass muster under our Constitution and our Bill of Rights?

Here's a really far out example, but not out of the realm of possibility. Suppose the UN wanted to push a treaty which made nation states' constitutions invalid, null, and void, and instead insisted that those nation states adhere to a world constitution. The president signs this and the senate passes it. Is it now law in our country? Hell no.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

Any treaty that was signed by a president and restricts or eliminates a right owned by the People is going to have a hard row to hoe. And that is how it should be.

Yes, I agree w/ southernboy. furthermore, though arguable, the bill of rights takes precedent over the rest of the constitution and it's articles or ratified treaties. The president and senate cannot enter into a treaty which circumvents the bill of rights. or constitution, but especially the bill of rights. The only way I could see that happening, which is possible, is to have Obama liberals as a majority in SCOTUS, and the Senate which would not recognize the constitution or SCOTUS case law. As it stands now, SCOTUS would jump all over any treaty that they deemed unconstitutional, and yes the buck stops with SCOTUS. Obama,, and his ilk that elected him and many governors are socialists and authoritarians, which does not fall in line with the bill of rights. At least that's the way I see it. Thank god, the NRA backed Heller case was brought to SCOTUS or it would make such issue less clear in my opinion. Furthermore, a plethora of SCOTUS case law holds:“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

I should add that I am neither naive or ignorant enough to believe that our employees (read that as our public servants) would adhere to their oath of office in all matters domestic and foreign. They have already proved many times over under many administrations and congresses that they are perfect willing to circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "for the common good"... more like for their good. The first rule of politics is never to trust politicians.

I should add that I am neither naive or ignorant enough to believe that our employees (read that as our public servants) would adhere to their oath of office in all matters domestic and foreign. They have already proved many times over under many administrations and congresses that they are perfect willing to circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "for the common good"... more like for their good. The first rule of politics is never to trust politicians.

Yes, that is unequivocally the reason why the drafters placed the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. The true common good is freedom from oppression and tyranny foreign and domestic.

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This means a treaty can not override the Constitution or State's law.

I do not support this treaty at all,and I think very little of Nato to begin with,but this treaty deals with import and export of arms.Nato will never come here trying to disarm us,if you think the talk of civil war on the horizon is bad people will come unglued if Nato steps foot here.

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This means a treaty can not override the Constitution or State's law.

I do not support this treaty at all,and I think very little of Nato to begin with,but this treaty deals with import and export of arms.Nato will never come here trying to disarm us,if you think the talk of civil war on the horizon is bad people will come unglued if Nato steps foot here.

Look for the Obama administration to proceed full steam ahead in their attempt to ram the UN legislation down the collective throats of all Americans. After all, he has a mandate doesn't he ?

The UN plan to really worry about is the creeping evil known as Agenda 21. Through that sinister plan, a host of laws could get through congress and signed by a sympathetic administration (Obama) into law.

Anything can happen in contravention of the Bill of Rights. There are multiple checks on an unconstitutional law/treaty gaining the force of law, but the checks (like the safety device on your handgun) can fail. For example, your fifth amendment right to just compensation for a public use taking of your property is, at present, a virtual nullity. Basically, you ain't got that right anymore, except for blind luck. So, while a long shot, a UN initiated gun grab is not a conspiratorial fantasy, it is quite simply a low probability threat. Finally, when unconstitutional laws gain the force of law and the checks fail, it is up to the people to reassert and retain there rights. Otherwise you acquiesce to tyranny.

Anything can happen in contravention of the Bill of Rights. There are multiple checks on an unconstitutional law/treaty gaining the force of law, but the checks (like the safety device on your handgun) can fail. For example, your fifth amendment right to just compensation for a public use taking of your property is, at present, a virtual nullity. Basically, you ain't got that right anymore, except for blind luck. So, while a long shot, a UN initiated gun grab is not a conspiratorial fantasy, it is quite simply a low probability threat. Finally, when unconstitutional laws gain the force of law and the checks fail, it is up to the people to reassert and retain there rights. Otherwise you acquiesce to tyranny.

Yep, yep, yep. People get the government they both want and deserve. Been true for thousands of years.

In just two months the globalists of the UN will gather in New York City to put the final touches on plans to impose strict regulations worldwide on the right of the individual to buy, sell, trade, or own guns and ammunition.

...

Globalists!!! Half the country doesn't even know they exist, 1/4 deny their existence, and the other 1/4 really know what they are up to